Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7135-H7146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 504 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3354.
Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1719

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, with Mr. Jody B. Hice of
Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 113 printed in House Report 115-295 offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to House Resolution 504, no further amendment to the bill,
as amended, shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
297, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 504,
and available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of House
Resolution 500.
Each further amendment printed in the report shall be considered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be consider as read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any
time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as
described in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting
of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments
en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall
not be subject to amendment, except as described in section 4 of House
Resolution 500, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
504 and as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc. A list of the included
amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed
to by both sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10,
11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 34, 35, 47, 48, 49, 58, and 79,
printed in House Report No. 115-297, offered by Mr. Calvert of
California:

amendment no. 3 offered by mr. soto of florida

Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000) (increased by $500,000)''.

amendment no. 7 offered by mr. courtney of connecticut

Page 15, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $300,000) (increased by $300,000)''.

amendment no. 9 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island

Page 15, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 10 offered by mr. clyburn of south carolina

Page 16, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 11 offered by mr. heck of washington

Page 16, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,500,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,500,000)''.

amendment no. 16 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona

Page 31, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.

amendment no. 17 offered by ms. plaskett of virgin islands

Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $995,000)''.
Page 40, line 11, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $995,000)''.
Page 40 line 11, after the second dollar amount insert
``(increased by $977,000)''.
Page 40, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $18,000)''.

amendment no. 19 offered by mrs. carolyn b. maloney of new york

Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 109, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 20 offered by mr. brendan f. boyle of pennsylvania

Page 43, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,911,000)''.
Page 104, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,911,000)''.

amendment no. 22 offered by mr. welch of vermont

Page 63, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,399,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,399,000)''.
Page 64, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,399,000)''.

amendment no. 23 offered by mr. mast of florida

Page 63, line 6, insert ``(increased by $1,086,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 64, line 1, insert ``(decreased by $1,086,000)'' after
the dollar amount.

amendment no. 25 offered by mr. soto of florida

Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $468,000) (increased by $468,000)''.

amendment no. 26 offered by mr. mast of florida

Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

amendment no. 34 offered by mr. polis of colorado

Page 81, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $12,371,000)''.
Page 85, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $12,371,000)''.
Page 86, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,989,000)''.
Page 86, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,382,000)''.

amendment no. 35 offered by mr. o'halleran of arizona

Page 95, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $47,000,000) (increased by $47,000,000)''.

amendment no. 47 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to limit outreach programs administered by the
Smithsonian Institution.

amendment no. 48 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

At the end of division A, before the short title, add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for
the ``DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR--National Park Service--national
recreation and preservation'' may be used in contravention of
section 320101 of title 54, United States Code.

amendment no. 49 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used may be used to eliminate the Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partnership.

amendment no. 58 offered by ms. poliquin of maine

At the end of division A (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to enforce the export permission requirements of
section 9(d)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1538(d)(1)) for members of the phylum Echinodermata
commonly known as sea urchins and sea cucumbers.

amendment no. 79 offered by ms. speier of california

At the end of division A (before the short title) insert
the following:

limitation on use of funds

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule entitled ``Special Regulations, Areas of the
National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Dog Management'' published by the National Park Service in
the Federal Register on February 24, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 9139
et seq.; Regulation Identifier No. 1024-AE16).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman

[[Page H7136]]

from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps our local communities
preserve and restore important historic sites through a successful
Federal-State partnership.
For more than 40 years, the Historic Preservation Fund has helped our
States and Native Tribes leverage funds to revitalize communities and
create opportunities for economic growth.
In my district, for example, the Historic Preservation Fund was
recently used to rehabilitate Olympia's historic Stoker House, which is
now home to a small clinic that provides much-needed mental health
counseling services.
This year, funds were also used for Washington State's Youth Heritage
Project in Tacoma, which introduced high school students to the
maritime heritage of the Puget Sound region.
This amendment would simply restore Historic Preservation funding to
last year's levels. It is a small but effective Federal program that
deserves continued support.
This is a bipartisan amendment, and I am thankful to have the support
of the co-chairs of the Historic Preservation Caucus, Congressmen
Turner and Blumenauer, along with Congressmen Smith, Courtney, and
Keating.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no opposition to this en bloc
amendment moving forward, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc, and I
urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Poliquin).
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Chairman, I am thrilled to rise today to speak on
behalf of my amendment which will remove unnecessary, redundant, and
burdensome regulations from our sea urchins and sea cucumbers industry
in the great State of Maine.
Now, we have some of the most hardworking people, Mr. Chair, in our
State, and some of them--about 600 or so of them--along with the
processing part brave the cold, dark waters of the great State of Maine
and dive for sea urchins and cucumbers and harvest them on a regular
basis year-round. It is a process that is dangerous, but these
delicacies are sold all around the world, mostly in the Far East, and
we need to make sure our government helps these individuals work this
terrific fishery that has been doing so well in the past.
Now, I want to thank my colleague, Chellie Pingree, who represents
the First District. I represent the Second District of Maine. She has
been very helpful. We have worked together for quite some time on this
issue in a bipartisan way to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that we don't
have too many regulations that are unnecessary and expensive such that
we can make sure this part of our fishery is healthy and goes forward.
So, again, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, very much your giving me this
opportunity to speak on behalf of my amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers present at this
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers. I rise in
support of the amendments en bloc, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to speak
in support of my amendment to Division A of H.R. 3354, the ``Interior
and Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018.''
Let me also thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their leadership in shepherding this bill to the floor.
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the Smithsonian
Institution, which operates our national museums, including the Air and
Space Museum; the Museum of African Art; the Museum of the American
Indian; and the National Portrait Gallery.
The Smithsonian also operates another national treasure: the National
Zoo.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States.
The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides that:
``Sec.___. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used
to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian
Institution.''
This amendment is identical to an amendment I offered to the Interior
and Environment Appropriations Act for FY2008 (H.R. 2822) that was
approved by voice vote on July 7, 2016.
Mr. Chair, the Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian
scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and
into their own backyard.
Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington,
D.C.
But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and
diffusion of knowledge,'' the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even
greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities
who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history
offered by the Smithsonian.
The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans,
thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50
states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of
educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations,
training programs, and websites.
Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with
Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate
institutions and others across the nation.
The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based
cultural and educational organizations around the country.
They ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence
in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a
network of affiliations.
Smithsonian outreach programs increase connections between the
Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American,
Latino, Native American, and new American) and provide kindergarten
through college-age museum education and outreach opportunities.
These outreach programs enhance K-12 science education programs,
facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and
scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and
disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths
of the Institution.
The programs that provide the critical mass of Smithsonian outreach
activity are:
1. the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES);
2. the Smithsonian Affiliations, the Smithsonian Center for Education
and Museum Studies (SCEMS);
3. National Science Resources Center (NSRC);
4. the Smithsonian Institution Press (SIP);
5. the Office of Fellowships (OF); and
6. the Smithsonian Associates (TSA), which receives no federal
funding.
To achieve the goal of increasing public engagement, SITES directs
some of its federal resources to develop Smithsonian Across America: A
Celebration of National Pride.
This ``mobile museum,'' which will feature Smithsonian artifacts from
the most iconic (presidential portraits, historic American flags, Civil
War records, astronaut uniforms, etc.) to the simplest items of
everyday life (family quilts, prairie schoolhouse furnishings, historic
lunch boxes, multilingual store front and street signs, etc.), has been
a long-standing organizational priority of the Smithsonian.
SITES ``mobile museum'' is the only traveling exhibit format able to
guarantee audience growth and expanded geographic distribution during
sustained periods of economic retrenchment, but also because it is
imperative for the many exhibitors nationwide who are struggling
financially yet eager to participate in Smithsonian outreach.
For communities still struggling to fully recover from the economic
downturn, the ability of museums to present temporary exhibitions, the
``mobile museum'' promises to answer an ever-growing demand for
Smithsonian shows in the field.
A single, conventional SITES exhibit can reach a maximum of 12
locations over a two- to three-year period.
In contrast, a ``mobile museum'' exhibit can visit up to three venues
per week in the course of only one year, at no cost to the host
institution or community.
The net result is an increase by 150 in the number of outreach
locations to which SITES shows can travel annually.
And in addition to its flexibility in making short-term stops in
cities and towns from coast-to-coast, a ``mobile museum'' has the

[[Page H7137]]

advantage of being able to frequent the very locations where people
live, work, and take part in leisure time activities.
By establishing an exhibit presence in settings like these, SITES
will not only increase its annual visitor participation by 1 million,
but also advance a key Smithsonian performance objective: to develop
exhibit approaches that address diverse audiences, including population
groups not always affiliated with mainstream cultural institutions.
SITES also will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's
National Museum of African American History and Culture, as that new
Museum comes online.
Providing national access to projects that will introduce the
American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2008 will tour
such stirring exhibitions as NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration; 381
Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story; Beyond: Visions of Planetary
Landscapes; The Way We Worked: Photographs from the National Archives;
and More Than Words: Illustrated Letters from the Smithsonian's
Archives of American Art.
To meet the growing demand among smaller community and ethnic museums
for an exhibition celebrating the Latino experience, SITES provided a
scaled-down version of the National Museum of American History's 4,000-
square-foot exhibition about legendary entertainer Celia Cruz.
Two 1,500-square-foot exhibitions, one about Crow Indian history and
the other on basket traditions, will give Smithsonian visitors beyond
Washington a taste of the Institution's critically acclaimed National
Museum of the American Indian.
Two more exhibits, ``In Plane View'' and ``Earth from Space,''
provided visitors an opportunity to experience the Smithsonian's
recently opened, expansive National Air and Space Museum Udvar-Hazy
Center.
For almost 30 years, The Smithsonian Associates--the highly regarded
educational arm of the Smithsonian Institution--has arranged Scholars
in the Schools programs.
Through this tremendously successful and well-received educational
outreach program, the Smithsonian shares its staff--hundreds of experts
in art, history and science--with the national community at a local
level.
The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national
network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish
active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the
country.
There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States,
Puerto Rico, and Panama.
By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly
disciplines, both emerging and well-established, Smithsonian
Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and
visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the
Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities.
The National Science Resources Center (NSRC) strives to increase the
number of ethnically diverse students participating in effective
science programs based on NSRC products and services.
The Center develops and implements a national outreach strategy that
will increase the number of school districts (currently more than 800)
that are implementing NSRC K-8 programs.
The NSRC is striving to further enhance its program activity with a
newly developed scientific outreach program introducing communities and
school districts to science through literacy initiatives.
In addition, through the building of the multicultural Alliance
Initiative, the Smithsonian's outreach programs seek to develop new
approaches to enable the public to gain access to Smithsonian
collections, research, education, and public programs that reflect the
diversity of the American people, including underserved audiences of
ethnic populations and persons with disabilities.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee
Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together
this excellent legislation.
Mr. Chair, I also want to thank you for this opportunity to speak in
support of my amendments to Division A of H.R. 3354, the Interior and
Environment Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and to commend
Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership in
shepherding this bill through the legislative process.
Among other agencies, this legislation funds the U.S. Forest Service,
the National Park System, and the Smithsonian Institution, which
operates our national museums including the National Zoo.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple but it sends a very important
message from the Congress of the United States.
The Jackson Lee Amendment emphasizes the importance of Urban Wildlife
Refuge Partnerships and urban forests, and preserves our ability to
return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our
children.
Similar amendments were offered and accepted in the Interior and
Environment Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Year 2017 (H.R. 2822),
Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2643), and Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5386), and
were adopted by voice vote.
Mr. Chair, surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious
danger.
In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban
trees--a loss of over 600 million trees.
Eighty percent (80 percent) of the American population lives in the
dense quarters of a city.
Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area
that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and
agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars
in storm water management costs.
I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban
reforestation.
In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have
beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and
psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real
estate.
Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban
sprawl and deterioration.
Mr. Chair, a real commitment to enhancing our environment involves
both the protection of existing natural resources and active support
for restoration and improvement projects.
Several years ago, American Forests, a leading conservation group,
estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington
metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540
million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have
taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage.
Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen.
People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
A typical person consumes about 38 lb of oxygen per year.
A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb
of oxygen annually--two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a
year!
Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and
pollen with their leaves.
A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of the small particles and
gases of air pollution.
Trees help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased
carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our
atmosphere to ``heat up.''
Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt,
concrete and metal surfaces.
Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect.
A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees
Fahrenheit.
A 25 foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling costs of a typical
residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average annual savings of
$120 per American household.
Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds, and
reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent.
Mr. Chair, trees play a vital role in making our cities more
sustainable and more livable.
The Jackson Lee Amendment simply provides for continued support to
programs like Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnerships that reforest our
urban areas.
For all these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee
Amendment and thank Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for
their courtesies, consideration, and very fine work in putting together
this legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $12,000,000)''.
Page 66, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $12,000,000)''.

[[Page H7138]]

Superfund Enforcement is the epitome of Federal fiscal
responsibility. It ensures that polluters pay for the cleanup and the
mess they have caused.
For over 35 years, EPA's Superfund Enforcement program has enabled
thousands of site investigations at cleanups and has required viable
responsible parties to either conduct the work or pay for the cleanups
of these Superfund sites, in other words, hold parties accountable for
the action and correction of their activities.

{time} 1730

Any cuts to these funds clearly places corporate interests over that
of the health and financial well-being of the American people.
According to the EPA, the Superfund Enforcement program's efforts to
negotiate settlement agreements and issue order for cleanup work
accounts for approximately 69 percent of all the cleanup work currently
underway at Superfund sites around this country.
For every dollar the Superfund Enforcement program spends, private
parties commit $8 toward cleanup work. The enforcement funding is
essential in saving taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the
Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites.
As of August 1, 2017, there were 1,845 Superfund sites in the
country. These sites include dangerous and toxic substances not just in
my backyard but in everybody's backyard.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Superfund sites tend to be located near
lower income communities and around communities of color. Approximately
53 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund site in this
country, and 46 percent of them live in poorer communities and
communities of color. Fifteen percent of those residents live below the
poverty level.
According to a National Association of Clean Air Agencies report:
``Without EPA's enforcement, companies could avoid reporting, or
minimize the reported amount of toxic materials released to the
environment.''
Following one of the most catastrophic hurricanes to hit Texas, the
EPA found that 13 Superfund sites have been flooded or could face
damage as a result of Hurricane Harvey.
Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly tried to justify his cuts to the
agency by claiming that he wants the agency to go ``back to the
basics.'' I can't think of anything more fundamental than cleaning up
the most toxic sites in the Nation to protect the health of the people
who live nearby in those communities.
Restoring the ability of the EPA to self-sustain its core mission
should be a no-brainer for those on both sides of the aisle. In order
to restore the funding, my amendment will make a modest cut to the
BLM's oil and gas program. This program is a massive giveaway to the
very polluters that have made the existence of the Superfund program a
necessity.
Currently, 7,950 drilling permits are approved and not being used.
There are 14.4 million acres of public land under lease and not
producing. There is no justification to dole out more taxpayer money in
order to expedite and speed up the permitting or leasing practices when
we have that amount not being used and over close to 15 million acres
under lease, as we speak.
A report by Oil Change International recently found that the U.S.
Government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to
the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. Meanwhile, oil
giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter of
this year, which equaled $4.1 billion in profits for just that one
quarter. They certainly did not need more taxpayer money while
communities across the United States continue to be exposed to toxic
and hazardous pollution.
My amendment restores, in part, EPA's core mission to protect the
public health of the American people and to hold all polluters
responsible and liable for the environmental and health risks they
cause.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mitchell). The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
support for robust funding of the Superfund program, particularly the
cleanup program.
There is a need for Congress to make progress to address the backlog
of 1,300 sites on the national priority list. The bill proposes to do
so with a $47.6 million increase for cleanup work. However, the
amendment proposes merely to increase EPA's enforcement budget by $12
million, with a stated objective of reducing BLM's oil and gas
management program.
The committee wrote a balanced bill, and I support the wise use of
Federal oil and gas resources. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this is a prudent, necessary protection
of public health and the environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 115-297.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Bacon

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,974,000)''.
Page 10, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BACON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 5. I plan to
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. However, before I do,
I would ask to engage Chairman Calvert in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to engage the gentleman from Colorado
in a colloquy.
Mr. BACON. The Fish and Wildlife Service has a backlog of 49 species
waiting to be down-listed or delisted. This issue is further compounded
by the fact that an additional 839 species are overdue for their
mandatory 5-year status review to determine if ESA protections need to
continue.
It is no wonder why States are frustrated that species are put on the
list and rarely removed. To be more effective in species conservation,
the Fish and Wildlife Service must address this backlog so States can
better focus their recovery efforts.
I respect the committee's progress made on this front, but I hope we
can make further efforts to ensure the Fish and Wildlife Service is an
effective ally in species conservation under EPA.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his
amendment, and I fully agree with his concerns about the backlogs, but
I have concerns with the proposed offset and appreciate the intention
to withdraw it.
The committee has made a concerted effort in recent years to fix
these problems and has increased the recovery account by almost $4
million over the last 2 years.
Under House Republican pressure over the past 7 years, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has delisted more species than all other previous
years combined, but, clearly, we still have a long way to go.

[[Page H7139]]

The Service has been directed and funded to complete all 5-year
reviews within the period required by law, and the committee will
continue to press the Service to see that they eliminate these
backlogs.
I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue, and I pledge to
work with him on this.
Mr. BACON. I thank the gentleman for his feedback and efforts, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment No. 5.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).
Mr. O'HALLERAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendments address critical health
needs in Indian Country by providing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
the Indian Health Service additional funding to complete projects.
My first amendment ensures communities, including the Hopi Tribe in
my district, have resources for funding to complete their arsenic
medication project.
My second amendment fulfills part of our trust relationship with
federally recognized Tribes by ensuring Indian Health Service clinics
and hospitals opening this year receive staffing and operations
funding.
In my district, the Gila River Health Care Red Tail Hawk Health
Center is scheduled to be opened, but has not received staffing or
operation funding. These healthcare facilities are badly needed to
increase access to healthcare in the community.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Chairman, I am asking that we include my provision
for raising funds for the Department of the Interior's assistance to
territories in this en bloc amendment.
This is a very modest uptick of the $1 million in Federal support for
the United States territories, namely the Virgin Islands, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. It is crucial that the
Federal Government keep its commitment to address the pressing needs of
Americans living in these territories as we face grave natural disaster
and security threats.
Right now, thousands of people are feeling the effects of one of the
most catastrophic hurricanes ever to strike the Caribbean region.
Hurricane Irma has toppled buildings and leveled many homes. Making the
Virgin Islands whole again will require massive and coordinated efforts
spanning a long period of time.
Much of the Federal Government's support for Americans in U.S.
territories comes out of this territorial assistance account, with
funding channeled toward necessary community facilities like schools,
hospitals, and critical infrastructure systems. This support is
imperative.
After this hurricane, one of our hospitals is partially destroyed.
The other faces egregious deferred maintenance issues due, in part, to
an extremely high proportion of uncompensated care because the
territories face inequitable treatment in Federal health programs like
Medicaid and Medicare.
Construction or repair to schools and hospitals account for much of
the capital improvement project expenditures that come directly out of
this assistance to the territories' account.
We are asking that the territories receive the same funding that they
have received previously, and please approve this amendment to reverse
this cut as a simple matter of fairness to the territories.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
504, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2. The list of
the amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been
agreed to by both sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 6, 24, 28,
33, 52, 54, and 70 printed in House Report 115-297, offered by Mr.
Calvert of California:

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. McSally of Arizona

Page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $316,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $364,700)''.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Mast of Florida

Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,200,000)''.
Page 21, line 07, after the dollar amount, insert,
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Mast of Florida

Page 63, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $979,000)''.
Page 104 line 10, after the dollar amount, insert,
``(increased by $979,000)''.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Ms. McSally of Arizona

Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $3,831,000)''.
Page 81, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 81, line 10, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. McKinley of West Virginia

Page 80, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
Page 81, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 81, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Byrne of Alabama

At the end of division A (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to propose to repeal section 105(a)(2) or section
105(b) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43
U.S.C. 1331 note).

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Burgess of Texas

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to hire or pay the salary of any officer or
employee of the Environmental Protection Agency under
subsection (f) or (g) of section 207 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 209) who is not already receiving pay
under either such subsection on the date of enactment of this
Act.

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Emmer of Minnesota

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to withdraw National Forest System lands within the
Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest from
disposition under United States mineral and geothermal
leasing laws.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Calvert) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
Mr. EMMER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this en bloc amendment because
it contains language I offered to support the hardworking people of
Minnesota.
Our amendment halts a last-minute effort by the previous
administration that would restrict all leasing, exploration, and
potential development of approximately 234,000 acres of Federal land in
northeast Minnesota.
If this ban were to take effect, it would have a devastating impact
on the economy of my State, as well as our Nation as a whole.
Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources has estimated there are
roughly $500 billion worth of minerals in the area proposed for
withdrawal, in addition to nearly $3 billion in royalty revenues for
Minnesota's Permanent School Trust Fund, which would support almost
900,000 K-12 students statewide.
Through this amendment, we have a real opportunity to get the Federal
Government out of the way so this land can remain available for future
development to bring much-needed jobs and revenue to the great State of
Minnesota.
These efforts have garnered the support of more than 60 members of
the Minnesota Legislature, from both parties I might add. We also have
the backing of Chairman Bishop of the House Natural Resources
Committee, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee, Representative Paul Gosar.

[[Page H7140]]

{time} 1745

The National Mining Association, Mining Minnesota, and the
Congressional Western Caucus are in favor of the amendment, and it
could not be more in line with the current administration's priorities
to create jobs and reinvigorate the American economy.
Because we know that somehow, somewhere, someone will find a way to
mine the precious metals in this area in a safe and environmentally
responsible way----
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Chairman, when that happens, Minnesota deserves to
have that opportunity and the jobs and economic prosperity that will
ensue.
Again, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak in support
of my amendment, and I encourage everyone to support the en bloc
package.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this en bloc
amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this block of
amendments, and I do appreciate that this block seeks to increase
funding to address the National Park Service's $11.3 billion backlog of
deferred maintenance.
I firmly believe that we need to increase annual appropriations for
our parks, but funding shouldn't come at the expense of other critical
agency accounts.
In my neck of the woods, the Olympic National Park, alone, has $150
million in backlogged maintenance needs, so we are not going to
accomplish this enormous goal a few million dollars at a time. The real
solution is for Congress to provide a robust and dedicated funding
source, and that is why I partnered with Representative Hurd and my
fellow Washingtonian, Representative Reichert, to introduce the
National Park Service Legacy Act, which will create a dedicated source
of funding to address the National Park Service maintenance backlog.
This bipartisan and bicameral bill is funded through unobligated
mineral royalties and would generate up to $500 million, annually,
through 2047.
So, if we are serious about addressing the overwhelming maintenance
backlog in our national parks, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment and join me in support of the National Park Service Legacy
Act.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments
included in the en bloc. Many of them use offsets from accounts in the
Environmental Protection Agency of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
they are already severely underfunded.
I am particularly troubled by one amendment to this group that
threatens our Nation's most visited wilderness area. Let me tell you
why I oppose the Emmer amendment.
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, located in northern
Minnesota, is one of the last truly wild places in America. These 1.1
million acres of unspoiled woodlands and more than 1,000 pristine lakes
are beloved by adventurers, canoers, and sportsmen from all across our
country. This national treasure lies in the vast Rainy River Watershed
and flows north into Voyageurs National Park and onward towards Canada.
Recently, there has been a push to conduct sulfide-ore copper mining
less than 3 miles from the Boundary Waters Wilderness. This mining
threatens to irreplaceably damage the waters, the wildlife, and the
landscape. Sulfur ore mining is the most toxic industry in America,
polluting waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury,
and lead.
In 2014, the Mount Polley sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia
failed, dumping billions of liters of toxic sludge and leaving
permanent environmental damage in its wake.
To protect the boundary waters from this type of destruction, the
Forest Service acted last December and launched a thorough
environmental analysis with public engagement to assess what type of
mining, if any, is appropriate on Federal lands and this watershed for
the next 20 years. The Trump and the Obama administrations have both
agreed we need a thorough, scientific-based assessment of the best
management of this sensitive ecosystem and conservation of our boundary
waters.
The Emmer amendment upends this careful process. It pushes aside the
Forest Service's ongoing study. It mandates that dangerous copper and
sulfide mining will be allowed in the watershed, regardless of the
conclusions of this environmental study, and it intentionally ignores a
public process that hundreds of thousands of Americans weighed in on
with comments on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, this amendment
sets a horrible precedent, wastes taxpayer dollars already invested in
this study, and threatens a national treasure, and it should never
become law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc and urge
its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, let me start by acknowledging my colleagues,
Representatives Emmer and Nolan. I'm proud to call both of you my
friends, but I'm speaking tonight because I disagree with this
amendment.
We can be open to new types of mining in Minnesota when the necessary
environmental reviews are met, like in the case of Polymet, which I
support.
Taconite mining is part of Minnesota's DNA. However, the copper-
nickel mining being proposed on the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area is not taconite mining, and has never been done before in
Minnesota. Earlier this year, the Trump administration said it would
allow the current environmental review process to proceed to
completion. I support that decision, and I oppose this amendment's
effort to defund an ongoing environmental review to protect one of
Minnesota's natural treasures. Indeed, it's one of our country's most
spectacular wilderness areas.
The Boundary Waters is Minnesota's Yellowstone. Hundreds of thousands
of Americans visit on fishing and canoe trips annually. Some of the
best memories of my life have taken place in the Boundary Waters, both
as a child and now as a parent with my daughters.
The public process that is underway after hundreds of thousands of
people weighed in with their comments, should not be ignored and tossed
aside. And, a science-based assessment of the best management practices
of this sensitive ecosystem should be adhered to. We owe it to future
generations to understand the impact copper-nickel mining poses to
Minnesota's most precious water and land before we put it at risk.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. McSally

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 115-297.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 15, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,692,000)''.
Page 15, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,692,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $12,078,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Ms. McSally) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of my amendment to
the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.
This amendment would approve access to America's prized treasures by
increasing the National Park Service's Facility Maintenance and
Operations account by $9.7 million, bringing the funding amount up to
the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. In doing so, this amendment will
help address the longstanding deferred maintenance needs of the Park
Service.
Currently, the National Park Service has an $11.9 billion backlog,
which is a figure that has increased steadily since 2009. According to
the most recent NPS deferred maintenance report, the Yosemite National
Park, in Chairman Calvert's home State, has a backlog of $555 million.
Yellowstone has a backlog of $716 million across three States.

[[Page H7141]]

The Grand Canyon's backlog of $350 million makes up a large portion of
my home State's--Arizona--delayed and deferred projects. In fact,
Arizona has one of the largest backlogs of any State in the country:
$565 million.
This problem doesn't only impact the crown jewels of the park system.
In my district, maintenance projects require attention at the Saguaro
National Park of approximately $12.9 million, of which the Chiricahua
National Monument in Cochise County faces roughly $10.3 million in
needed restoration projects.
Mr. Chairman, this country and my State is home to some of the
world's most renowned landscapes and natural beauty. By providing this
modest funding increase to address some of the backlog across the
Nation, my amendment will ensure Americans have unimpaired access to
their national parks and that the enjoyment of these wonders is
available for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment that takes
more money away from an already starved Environmental Protection
Agency. The EPA's main operating account is already cut by $240
million.
The EPA plays a critical role in keeping Americans safe both during
natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and on a day-to-day basis. I
know this because the EPA, right now, is cleaning up a toxic waste site
that has been recently discovered in my congressional district.
Unfortunately, the very air we breathe and the water we drink is
endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this
bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities
across this Nation.
Now, this amendment would increase funding for the National Park
Service, something I do support. I have just been to Glacier National
Park, where I saw their backlog, and I agree wholeheartedly that we
should be investing in our parks, but it cannot be done at the expense
of our public health.
Republicans have chosen to put forward an omnibus bill that leaves
nearly $5 billion of nondiscretionary funds on the table. So rather
than gutting the EPA farther, we should be using all the resources
available to us and working on a bipartisan budget agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting Chair. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment. I certainly urge Members to support it.
This bill maintains the increases provided last year for deferred
maintenance and increases the construction account by $10 million. This
amendment will further our efforts to address the longstanding deferred
maintenance needs.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your support of the
amendment, and I would ask all Members on both sides of the aisle to
support our national parks and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 12 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Griffith

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 28, line 17, strike ``3'' and insert ``6''.

Modification to Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read the modification as follows:

Insert at the end the following:
Page 28, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $80,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is modified.
Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of what
was two amendments that we just merged into one because they went hand-
in-glove.
My amendment restores critical funding to three additional
Appalachian States, the same number of States currently funded by the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, for the reclamation of abandoned mine
lands in conjunction with economic and community development and reuse
goals.
Now, let me explain the program quickly.
This was the brainchild of Chairman Rogers a couple of years back,
and what the idea was, originally, when they did the Abandoned Mine
Land program, you could just restore the land. They came up with the
concept in the hard-hit devastated areas of central Appalachia that we
should not only allow it to be a restoration of the land, but that that
land could be used and looked at as an economic purpose, a reuse the
community could use for community development or economic development,
and that was important.
Funding for these reclamation grants was first established in fiscal
year 2016, but it was originally provided only to the three Appalachian
States with the greatest amount of unfunded reclamation needs.
Unfortunately, that didn't, of course, reach all the States, and so
last year, an additional three States were added, those States being
Virginia, Ohio, Alabama, the original three being Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Kentucky.
This year, as things were working through, Virginia, Ohio, and
Alabama were not currently included. My amendment basically makes sure
they are included. We have worked with the team on the Appropriations
Committee to word it correctly. We think we have got it worded
correctly so that we now have the ability to add in all three States.
I think this is important. Folks often say to us: Those of you in
coal country, in central Appalachia, need to transition your economy.
Well, we can't transition our economy if we have huge blocks of land
which we can't use because they are unusable due to prior acts that
left them in a condition where we know they need to be reclaimed, but
you can't reclaim them looking at economic development.
So this is a way to retool. Chairman Rogers came up with it. We would
like to extend it to the other States that would be greatly helped by
this, the three that I mentioned previously, Ohio, Alabama, and
Virginia, and that is what my amendments do.
I would ask all to support this amendment to help those areas that
are economically devastated in central Appalachia and expand on a
program which is already showing signs of success.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1800

Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose an amendment that takes
more money away from the EPA.

[[Page H7142]]

As I mentioned before, this bill already severely cuts the EPA's main
operating account by $240 million. The air we breathe and the water we
drink are endangered by the policy decisions that are being made in
this bill. The consequences will be felt in communities across the
Nation. I understand, for many, cutting the EPA is an easy target, but
I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would actually
be cutting, if adopted.
This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the
aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the
country, toxic risk prevention, parts of the successful Brownfields
Program, and pesticide licensing.
So I understand that the money would direct more funding to States in
Appalachia. Appalachia is suffering. They are suffering from the raging
environmental harm caused by coal mining. But, unfortunately, I cannot
support any deeper cuts to the EPA.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's overall goal
is to continue funding for the AML pilot project, consistent with a
fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and structure for the six Appalachian
States.
Therefore, we can accept this package of amendments at this time,
work toward maintaining funding for 6 States in a final fiscal year
2018 enacted bill. If we are able to achieve that goal, I hope we can
count on the gentleman's support to pass both this House package and to
enact the 2018 end-of-year spending bill.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the challenges
that the gentleman is suffering in his State and throughout Appalachia,
but I cannot support any more deeper cuts to the EPA, so I must oppose
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to help us transition
the economy in central Appalachian support to the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Jody B. Hice) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman
Frelinghuysen and Interior Subcommittee Chairman Calvert for their
efforts on this legislation, and I thank them for the opportunity to
speak today.
I am committed to pursuing a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy
strategy, and I would like to take this time to engage in a colloquy on
section 438 of this bill, pertaining to offshore wind development. As a
representative from a coastal area, I want to ensure that all offshore
energy development is pursued in a pragmatic manner.
Section 438 restricts funding for the Department of the Interior to
administer offshore wind leases within 24 nautical miles off the coast
of Maryland. This language hinders offshore wind development by
imposing unprecedented and burdensome requirements on three existing
leases.
Typically, offshore wind turbines are constructed roughly 12 nautical
miles from the coastline, which is generally out of sight from shore.
By doubling the setback, section 438 unreasonably restricts these
projects and sets a poor policy precedent for future development.
Furthermore, modifying the terms and conditions of the leases
violates the sanctity of the lease and creates considerable uncertainty
for companies pursuing any offshore wind project.
It is critical that we establish regulatory and contractual certainty
in all areas of natural resource development. America's offshore wind
industry is in its infancy, and the policies and precedents that we set
today will affect investment long into the future.
The language contained in section 438 is concerning for this reason,
and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland in the
future to find a more appropriate solution.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Calvert for allowing me time to
discuss an issue that is important to my constituents in Ocean City,
Maryland.
I am proud that Ocean City is home to beautiful beaches and views
and, as a result, a booming tourism industry.
I sought the inclusion of section 438 to respond to concerns of Ocean
City residents regarding the visibility of the proposed wind turbines
offshore. By siting turbines within 24 nautical miles from the
shoreline, I am concerned that our beach economy and tourist experience
will be compromised. I believe every effort must be made to minimize
the impact of this project on the Ocean City view shed.
This large scale project requires full consideration of the needs and
opinions of the local community. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to develop a practical solution to this challenge.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at our full committee
markup, I understood that my colleague, Dr. Harris, was offering his
amendment to address local concerns from his residents with respect to
the visibility of offshore turbines. With all of these offshore
projects, many varying viewpoints need to be taken into account. I
appreciate that we have been able to discuss many of these views and
concerns here today.
It is my hope that we can work with the authorizing committees of
jurisdiction, the administration, and all interested stakeholders to
identify some better solutions as we move forward through the fiscal
year 2018 process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Tipton). The Chair understands that amendment
No. 14 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 28, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $32,491,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $32,491,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of
the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, prior to the enactment of the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977, coal mining played an important role in
the United States for nearly 2 centuries, providing critical energy and
jobs for our Nation.
However, across Pennsylvania and throughout Appalachia, we continue
to have great needs in reclaiming our abandoned mine lands and
restoring our waters that have been impacted by historical mining
activities.
Since 1977, we have made great gains in restoring our historical mine
lands, but much more work still needs to be done.
The Federal Office of Surface Mining has estimated that the unfunded
liabilities of abandoned mine lands across the Nation exceeds $10
billion, with nearly half of that obligation located in Pennsylvania.
To complement the funding from the AML trust fund, which was
established through SMCRA, this legislation contains appropriations for
the AML pilot program in order to support additional

[[Page H7143]]

funding for abandoned mine lands for areas that need assistance most.
This program provides grants to States ``to accelerate the
remediation of AML sites with the economic and community development
end uses in mind.''
Unfortunately, this legislation provides $32 million less for the
pilot program compared to last year's level.
My amendment is simple and would not increase Federal spending. The
amendment would restore funding for the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
pilot program to its 2017 level by reallocating funds from the EPA's
Environmental Programs and Management by the same amount.
Mr. Chairman, where these funds are coming from is very consistent
with the mission of that account that it would to be taken from. But
the difference is that by putting this into the AML pilot program with
a laser focus, we are focused on environmental concerns that have been
identified, and we are funding remediation techniques that are proven.
We have an obligation to clean up our environment and restore our
abandoned mine lands and waters, and this program helps us do just
that.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment that
takes more money, again, away from an already starved EPA.
This is a duplicate from the last amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia earlier. It cuts another $32 million from the EPA's
operating accounts.
Our country right now is dealing with two catastrophes caused by
hurricanes. The destruction is going to be felt for years. The EPA
right now is one of the primary Federal agencies responsible for
protecting human health, monitoring air and water, and managing
recovery and cleanup, so it would be simply reckless to adopt another
amendment that would further cripple the EPA.
These two amendments would cut the EPA by $108 million.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
for those comments.
My point is, though, that this actually takes $32 million and puts it
like a laser on an area where we know that environmental damage is well
documented and we have very effective public-private partnership
techniques to address.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am certainly prepared to accept this amendment. I understand the
importance of the program to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and other
Members in the Appalachian region. I look forward to working with him
and all of the interested Members.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand clearly what the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to accomplish.
I wish we could accomplish that goal. But with already a $240 million
cut to the EPA and all of the challenges on the EPA--we just recently
agreed on this floor by a voice vote to cut the EPA another $75
million. This would be another $33 million.
So I hope that we can reach a place in the funding that the chairman
and I have where we can address the serious concerns that you bring to
the floor where you had success with programs. But, at the same time, I
would be cutting opportunities for cleanup, especially with all of the
disasters looming--forest fires, disasters, and cleanup I just had
recently in my district that came out of the blue. The EPA wouldn't
have money to respond.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,011,000)''.
Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,011,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $1 million in
cuts to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA, with an
equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the DOI Office
of the Secretary.
In 1992, the program was created and originally called the
Environmental Equity Office. It was created after a series of releases
of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located
in low-income communities and communities of color.

{time} 1815

With minimal support, the program has provided communities with
leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build
health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and
recreation areas, and, more importantly, raise the awareness of the
disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and
decisionmakers.
Despite this success within the EPA for decades, we are not even
close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice.
In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that
racial minorities and low-income communities are still
disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities,
permitted emissions facilities, and that they often lack the political
and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a
decision or seeking redress.
A report by the staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources
found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous
reservations across the Nation more closely resemble developing
countries than they do the rest of the Nation. Nearly half of all homes
on Tribal land lack access to adequate drinking water, sewage, or solid
waste disposal facilities. As a result, Native families often end up
drinking unclean water that increases disease risks and impairs Tribal
economic development.
Additionally, low-income communities of color have been on the
frontline of Houston's petrochemical industry for decades, and when
Harvey struck, they were some of the first to feel the effects as
chemical plants caught fire, refineries began flaring toxins, and
polluted floodwater went into their neighborhoods.
The EPA Office of Environmental Justice helps integrate concerns of
these communities within the general activities of the agencies. This
is not a program that can afford to be scaled back, especially as
concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around Hurricane
Harvey and now in Irma's path. It is critical that we protect frontline
communities and communities of color from disparate impacts caused by
environmental pollution. One million dollars is not a lot of

[[Page H7144]]

money for this task, but it reaffirms the significance of the office
and our sense of equality.
Today I ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and
show them that Congress cares about their public health, their housing,
and their importance as people.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, given our allocation, which was $824 million
below the fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. It is
also important to note that the bill does not support the elimination
of the program, as has been proposed in the President's budget. It was
the committee's effort to find some middle ground.
While I can certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest to maintain
fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the allocation of the committee doesn't
support those levels. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the
Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member of the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of this amendment to
restore funding to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA.
This program enables the agency to better assist frontline communities
that are disproportionately impacted by pollution.
Low-income and minority communities face disproportionate levels of
hazardous pollution and environmental contaminants due to where their
members live and where they work.
The harms are real. For instance, higher levels of air pollution
result in members of minority groups having higher death rates and
higher numbers of emergency room visits and hospital stays.
As the cofounder and co-chair of the United for Climate and
Environmental Justice Task Force, it is my mission to combat these
environmental injustices and ensure frontline communities no longer
bear the unequal burden of environmental, economic, and health harms.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is so important.
The Environmental Justice program leverages Federal funds to greatly
improve health and quality of life in our most vulnerable communities.
Since the establishment of the program, communities have been better
able to revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand
affordable housing, and create new green spaces and recreational areas.
I urge my colleagues to show low-income and minority communities that
we care about their health, housing, and overall well-being by
supporting the amendment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Price of North Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 63, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $104,235,000) (increased by $104,235,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would restore
the EPA's Science and Technology account to 2017 levels.
I offer this amendment to underscore the importance of environmental
research to the health and safety of the American people, as well as
thousands of jobs in my district and across the country.
This amendment is framed in increase-decrease terms for the simple
reason that, given the subcommittee's inadequate allocation, there is
simply no place to turn for an offset.
The EPA's Science and Technology account funds research and
development activities within the agency, supporting the work of the
world's leading environmental research enterprise and informing the
environmental policies that Congress enacts.
The bill on the floor today would cut this account by $105 million, a
15 percent reduction. About the only good thing I can say about that is
that it isn't as bad as the Trump budget, but it is still a deep and
devastating cut. Mr. Chairman, we have to restore these funds as this
bill moves through the remaining stages of the process.
The EPA's Office of Research and Development funded by this account
not only supports EPA programs in air, water, toxicology, and energy
research, but it also facilitates innovative partnerships with some of
the premier higher education and research institutions in the country.
EPA research facilities employ more than 2,000 people, supports some
700 affiliated jobs in my district alone. This includes advanced
laboratory scientists, administrative personnel, also blue-collar jobs
in maintenance, custodial, and security positions.
The EPA research that this agency conducts, world class research, it
allows us to remain proactive in protecting the air we breathe, the
water we drink, resources, whose safety we must never, ever take for
granted.
Now, I know the EPA is continually a scapegoat when it comes to
spending cuts. In times of crisis, however, we don't hesitate to call
on them to respond quickly to events that could pose a threat to the
environment and public safety.
Just last week in the devastating wake of Hurricane Harvey, sites
containing dangerous chemicals and contaminants were severely flooded
and damaged. Research from this office, the office being cut in this
bill, proved invaluable in putting together a safe and effective
response.
In other words, the EPA is part of the first line of defense to
respond to events that pose threats to public health and safety. It
follows that if we gut the EPA's research budget, we are putting
ultimately the American public at risk.
The EPA research cuts underscore, I think, how fraudulent the claim
is that this is a bill that would make America secure and prosperous.
Really? In reality, it would cripple investments that Americans count
on each and every day to keep them safe and healthy.
Mr. Chairman, I remain hopeful that a bipartisan budget agreement
will be reached that will allow us to restore this research funding and
do right by the people we represent.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate my friend's support
for the research conducted at the EPA, and particularly the Research
Triangle Park. I am a supporter of the world class research that occurs
at RTP with respect to the computational toxicology program. That
research has helped to identify alternative high throughput testing
methodologies that have reduced the number of animals used in
laboratories.
Given the current allocation, however, which is $824 million below
the

[[Page H7145]]

fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. We certainly
don't have a funding level that can support the fiscal year 2017
enacted levels, but we tried to do the best we could to find common
ground.
I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman in the future,
if we happily come to some kind of budget agreement, where we can
reallocate funds to something as important as this. But, again, because
of our allocation, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have to acknowledge that
the chairman did a pretty good job of describing some of the research
that we have underway in North Carolina and around the country, and I
know he understands that and wants to support it.
I also know that we have got to do better than the allocations
represented in this eight-bill omnibus effort. So I pledge to work with
him and other colleagues to achieve that kind of agreement, and then
also to revisit this account and other accounts that we know need
attention if we are to do our duty as representatives of our
communities and also maintain the investments a great country must
maintain.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen,
I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Lance) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank both Chairman Calvert and Chairman
Frelinghuysen for their work on this legislation. I greatly appreciate
the committee's efforts to fund the National Endowment for the Arts and
the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I stress the importance of Federal investments in the arts and
humanities. The numbers speak for themselves. The NEA and the NEH each
consist of only .003 percent of a nearly $4 trillion Federal budget,
yet for every dollar the United States spends on Federal arts
initiatives, nine nonFederal dollars are leveraged, generating roughly
$600 million in matching support.
Federal arts and humanities funding is a catalyst for the economic
development and job creation that we all need, having a powerful
multiplier effect not only in New Jersey, the State I represent, but
throughout the entire Nation.
The arts and humanities also engage nearly every community. In April,
I visited the Paper Mill Playhouse in Millburn, New Jersey, in the
district I serve, to see its ``Theater for Everyone'' project in
action, an autism-friendly program supported by the NEA. It provides a
creative outlet for children with developmental disabilities and for
their families. Seeing these performances reinforced the importance of
our continued investments in the NEA and in the NEH.
Mr. Chair, I also thank both Chairman Calvert and Chairman
Frelinghuysen for including funding for the Delaware River Basin
Restoration project authorized just last year to coordinate private
investments, regional partnerships, and local knowledge, and develop
strategies to protect and restore the watershed's ecological and
recreational assets and historical significance.

{time} 1830

Throughout the four States that are involved--New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Delaware--the Delaware River Basin supplies 15
million people with clean water and supports approximately $25 billion
in economic activity each year. It is imperative that we preserve these
resources for future generations, and I look forward to working with
the committee on this initiative.
Let me repeat my deep thanks to Chairman Calvert and to Chairman
Frelinghuysen.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman
Frelinghuysen for their commitment to the arts. I greatly appreciate
the subcommittee's efforts to fund the National Endowment for the Arts
and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
The NEA's mission is to strengthen the creative capacity of our
communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for
arts participation. Of critical importance, the NEA has expanded their
reach to help servicemembers who have been diagnosed with TBI,
traumatic brain injury, and other psychological conditions. This new
partnership is critically important.
The NEA Creative Forces Military Healing Arts Network is a
collaboration with the Department of Defense which supports music,
writing, and visual art therapy at military care facilities. They are
finding that the best treatment for PTSD is yoga, which doesn't cost us
anything.
The Creative Forces program places the creative arts therapies at the
core of patient-centered care in military medical facilities and
invests in research on the impacts and benefits of these innovative
treatment methods. The cost-effective, noninvasive arts therapy of
those programs rank consistently in the top five ``helpful'' and ``wish
to continue'' programs on patient satisfaction surveys of the men and
women who have gone through the programs, and over 85 percent of
military patients said art therapy was helpful to their healing.
We may even be learning here that this might be the best thing, as
Mr. Lance was pointing out, for autistic children.
But throughout the art therapy programs and the work that they are
doing, our servicemen and -women are being able to transition away from
the basketful of prescription drugs that they carry around with them
and lived on and are rejoining their families and life. So when they
wheel out of that healing, that psychological skill-building, self-
expression, and self-esteem that comes from these programs, that
obviously is certainly something that we need to continue.
As part of the NEA's mission to increase access to the arts for all
Americans, Creative Forces enables more servicemembers, veterans, and
military families to benefit from creative art therapies and community
arts activities.
NEA is so cheap it is surprising. For the small amount of money we
put into it, we would get about $9 billion back and many people who
have been employed. We don't do anything with a better return than the
money we spend for the arts.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
for yielding. I thank Chairman Calvert for engaging in this colloquy
with Mr. Lance and Ms. Slaughter and me.
We are highlighting the importance of the National Endowment for the
Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the importance
of robust funding for the work of those agencies. There is no more
efficient dollar spent in the entire Federal budget. I will say in a
minute what I mean by that.
I am very happy to be co-chairman, with Mr. Lance, of the
Congressional Humanities Caucus, to be a member of the Congressional
Arts Caucus, which Ms. Slaughter and others have led, and proud to
support the missions of these two agencies.
Federal support for the arts and the humanities affirms America's
rich and diverse cultural and artistic heritage. It really is an
investment in the quality of life of our people. I think we should see
it that way, and we need to

[[Page H7146]]

be steadfast in our support and our investment. It is one of the most
efficient we make, as I said. It leverages private, nonprofit, and
corporate dollars.
In 2015 alone, for example, Federal NEH museum grants leveraged $104
million in outside funding from only $33 million in Federal funds. That
is a pretty good return for the taxpayer.
They support millions of jobs, these endowments do, and the projects
they fund, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct economic activity,
and the American public loves them. Participation all over this
country, in communities large and small, rural and urban, is widespread
and enthusiastic.
So again, I thank the chairman for his attention to these important
lines in the budget. I hope we can bolster our commitment to the arts
and humanities and do even better as the appropriations process moves
forward.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to also commend the chairman and
working with the whole committee to make sure that the arts and
humanities receive the funding that they did.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to quickly thank the gentlewoman from the
great State of Minnesota, thank the gentleman from California, and just
very quickly say that I come with my amendments, but I also come just
to acknowledge the pending storm in Florida and Hurricane Harvey
because our arts communities were underwater, and they are still
underwater.
I offered amendments that deal with preservation of heritage areas,
urban reforestation, and the Smithsonian outreach. I thank my
colleagues for putting it in the en bloc.
But as I do so, I want to take note of, again, all of the debris and
be able to say that, in the course of hurricanes, historic entities are
impacted.
We are looking to establish an emancipation trail, and one of my most
important amendments is to ensure that there is national policy to
preserve, for public use, historic sites, buildings, and objects of
national significance for the inspiration and benefit of people of the
United States.
My community is looking for that emancipation trail, but it starts
from Galveston. We have not yet been able to assess whether any of
those historic markers and places were destroyed by Hurricane Harvey.
So the funding for the Interior Department and the aspects that come
under the Interior Department, the jurisdictional issue is very
important to us because we will have to look to see if our historic
entities have been preserved.
In the midst of debris and danger that our constituents face, this is
equally important, and it is equally important to restore the symphony,
to restore the ballet and our theater, all of them underwater in my
congressional district.
I hope, as we move forward, H.R. 3686, Hurricane Harvey supplemental
appropriation that we have filed that will embrace all of these issues,
will be considered.
I thank my colleagues for those amendments. And, again, in the course
of a storm, the history of people is jeopardized, and my amendments
deal with preserving the history of our people. Maybe, as we come out
of this, we will create the emancipation trail that is part of my
amendment.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Langevin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 115-297.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 64, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 64, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 73, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 504, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, before I actually get to my amendment, I
just want to say in reference to the previous discussion about properly
funding the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, I commend
the discussion on both sides and the commitment to properly fund those
programs.
The National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the
Humanities holds a special place in Rhode Island in that both of those
programs were championed by and helped to have been created by our late
senior Senator Claiborne Pell. We understand the importance of the arts
and humanities in Rhode Island, the jobs they create, the quality of
life they enhance, and I wholeheartedly support properly funding both
of those programs.
I had led a Special Order when the President's budget came out and
those programs had been zeroed out in funding. Several of my colleagues
and I got together and talked about the impact the arts and humanities
have on our States, on our districts, and on the country as a whole. I
just want to reiterate my support for the National Endowment for the
Arts and Humanities and all they do for the country.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment that we have before us would restore some
funding to the southern New England estuaries program, which is
currently zeroed out in the underlying bill.
This program, part of the EPA's geographic programs, has been a
thriving success, and anyone who has been to New England knows the
beauty of where the ocean meets the land. Our estuaries are in South
County, Rhode Island, and all along the Narragansett Bay; along Mount
Hope Bay and Buzzards Bay and throughout Cape Cod.
These areas are the lungs of our coastal areas and sustain the
diversity of plant and animal life. These funds are vital to conserving
this wetland habitat which is frequently under attack by human and
natural damage. So I implore the majority to support this program, as
they have supported similar programs for Puget Sound, the Chesapeake
Bay, and other areas.
I am proud to be joined by Representatives Cicilline, Keating, and
Kennedy as cosponsors of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, finally, I just want to say that I intend to offer and
withdraw this amendment provided that my colleague, Chairman Calvert,
is open to continuing the discussion on the importance of this program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. While the amendment itself is drafted in order as a
general increase to EPA geographic programs, the gentleman proposes to
fund a program that was not requested in the budget and is not
authorized.
Further, he proposes to reduce grants from DERA, the DERA program,
which is a key program for improving air quality in areas like mine
that are in a nonattainment area with existing standards.
For those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, as I said, I have offered to withdraw the
amendment as long as the chairman would continue discussion with me.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I am sorry. I didn't hear the gentleman, and
I happily accept his offer to withdraw the amendment. I will happily
work with him to see if we can't work some time in the future to find
room for this program that the gentleman is obviously supportive of.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the chairman, and I am grateful for his
consideration, and I look forward to working with him.
I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Katko) assumed the chair.

____________________